Case commentaries – Page 2
-
FeatureCase commentary: Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12
The Supreme Court has ruled against treating a litigant in person as a special case and says the rules as they stand must apply equally to all parties.
-
AnalysisCase commentary: Bailey v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 3195 (QB)
Alison Kirby analyses this judgment in which the High Court has considered, for the first time, whether the Arkin cap - the principle that a funder’s potential liability for adverse costs will be limited to the amount of the funding provided - still fits.
-
FeatureKerry Underwood's third party funding update
Kerry Underwood dissects two recent judgments that could have significant implications for third party funders.
-
FeatureKerry Underwood's part 36 update
Kerry Underwood looks at where we stand with part 36 in light of recent judgments and Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on fixed recoverable costs.
-
NewsBNM v MGN – The essential summary
Andy Ellis, managing director of Practico Ltd, reacts to the Court of Appeal decision in BNM v MGN on proportionality.
-
NewsContentious probate update - 2017 (part 3)
With Inheritance Act claims and will disputes being the order of the day in the first few months of the year, trusts, anonymity and judicial discretion seem to be the flavour of the spring and summer months.
-
NewsShould the court permit claimants to amend the claim form?
James Perry provides commentary on Wiseman v Marston’s Plc.
-
NewsHarrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust
Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers and a partner at Weightmans, explains why Harrison reinforces the need to ensure proper consideration is given to budgets.
-
AnalysisIs an expert needed? London Aviation Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland
The recently reported case of London Aviation Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] EWHC 1037 (Ch) decided that an expert was not ‘reasonably required’ because, on the facts of the case, an expert was unlikely to assist the judge.
-
AnalysisCase note: Shackleton and Associates v Al Shamsi [2017] EWHC 304 (Comm)
In this case, Mr Justice Teare considered whether the claimant company providing legal services could recover costs for the time spent on the litigation by its sole shareholder, a solicitor advocate.
-
NewsCase note: Moreno v Motor Insurers Bureau [2016] UKSC 52
The Supreme Court gave judgment in this case on 2 August 2016, and settled a very important issue: how are damages assessed when a British citizen is injured in an overseas accident?
-
AnalysisThe end of unbundling? Sequence Properties v Patel
An appeal court ruling may have delivered a serious body blow to solicitors offering unbundled services without being held liable for matters beyond those in their client retainer. Alison Kirby discusses the Patel judgment.
-
AnalysisHayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc [2016] UKSC 48
Supreme Court holds that a settlement may be set aside for fraud even if fraud is suspected
-
AnalysisVilca v Xstrata [2016] EWHC 1824 (QB)
The High Court has held that it has the power to order a party to appoint a separate law firm to conduct an independent re-review of its disclosure on strong grounds, although it chose not to in this case
-
AnalysisNovus Aviation Ltd v Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC [2016] EWHC 1937 (Comm)
Commercial Court rules that the full effect of part 36 was unjust when sterling value had recently fallen against the dollar.
-
AnalysisWebb Resolutions Ltd v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2016] Ch Div (4 May 2016)
The court has held a claimant liable for a defendant’s costs of and incidental to an abandoned professional negligence claim, even though the claim form had not been served - good news for defendants aiming to recover costs incurred pre-action?
-
AnalysisMassar [2016] ECJ C-460/14; Buyuktipi [2016] ECJ C-5/15
The ECJ has provided guidance on the proper construction of ‘inquiry’ in article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC relating to insureds’ right to choose a lawyer under a legal expenses insurance policy
-
AnalysisMendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB)
Mr Justice Coulson has ruled that a claimant could recover trial advocacy fees under CPR 45 when a claim settled on the day of the hearing, before the trial was heard
-
AnalysisBolt Burdon Solicitors v Tariq & Ors [2016] EWHC 811 (QB)
The court upholds a contingency fee agreement whereby the solicitors billed £498,083.52, whereas on a time basis the total would have been around £50,000.00 - an 800 per cent uplift
-
AnalysisFamily Mosaic Home Ownership Ltd v Peer Real Estate Ltd [2016] EWHC 257 (Ch)
The High Court has given guidance on the transfer of existing cases to the Shorter Trials Scheme
- Previous Page
- Page1
- Page2
- Page3
- Page4
- Next Page